Comparison of sagittal contour and posterior disc height following interbody fusion: Threaded cylindrical cages versus structural allograft versus vertical cages

Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 332-336

  Groth, Adam T ^a   Kuklo, Timothy R ^a   Klemme, William R ^b   Polly, David W ^b   Schroeder, Teresa M ^b  

^a WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Lumbar fusion; Posterior disc height; Sagittal contour; Structural allograft; Threaded cage; Vertical cage

Indexed keywords

TITANIUM;

ADULT; ALLOGRAFT; ARTICLE; BONE ALLOGRAFT; CAGE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMPLANT; INTERBODY FUSION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISEASE; LUMBAR SPINE; MALE; NERVE ROOT COMPRESSION; PATIENT POSITIONING; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPINE FUSION; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; SPINE SURGERY; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; STANDING; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERTICAL CAGE; ALLOTRANSPLANTATION; BONE SCREW; BONE TRANSPLANTATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; INSTRUMENTATION; LORDOSIS; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHY; SPINE;

ADULT; BONE TRANSPLANTATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNAL FIXATORS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; LORDOSIS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; SPINAL FUSION; SPINE; TRANSPLANTATION, HOMOLOGOUS;

EID: 32944479141     PISSN: 15360652     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000163037.17634.89     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, et al. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2001;26:567-571.
2. Stonecipher T, Wright S. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with facet-screw fixation. Spine. 1989;14:468-471.
3. Brodke DS, Disk JC, Kunz DN, et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A biomechanical comparison, including a new threaded cage. Spine. 1997;22:26-31.
4. Fraser RD. Interbody, posterior, and combined lumbar fusions. Spine. 1995;20:167s-177s.
5. Booth KC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Complications and predictive factors for the successful treatment of flatback deformity (fixed sagittal imbalance). Spine. 1999;24:1712-1720.
6. Enker P, Steffee AD. Interbody fusion and instrumentation. Clin Orthop. 1994;300:90-101.
7. Gelb DE, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. An analysis of sagittal spinal alignment in 100 asymptomatic middle and older aged volunteers. Spine. 1995;20:1351-1358.
8. Cinotti G, De Santis P, Nofroni I, et al. Stenosis of lumbar intervertebral foramen: Anatomic study on predisposing factors. Spine. 2002;27:223-229.
9. Cloward RB. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion updated. Clin Orthop. 1985;193:16-19.
10. Evans JH. Biomechanics of lumbar fusion. Clin Orthop. 1985;193:38-46.
11. Jenis LG, An HS. Spine update: Lumbar foraminal stenosis. Spine. 2000;25:389-394.
12. Kuslich SD, Danielson G, Dowdle JD, et al. Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage. Spine. 2000;25:2656-2662.
13. Miyakoshi N, Abe E, Shimada Y, et al. Outcome of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and postoperative intervertebral disc degeneration adjacent to the fusion. Spine. 2000;25:1837-1842.
14. Voor MJ, Mehta S, Wang M, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of posterior and anterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques. J Spinal Disord. 1998;11:328-334.
15. Whitecloud TS, Roesch WW, Ricciardi JE. Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: A financial analysis. J Spinal Disord. 2001;14:100-103.
16. Bernhardt M. Normal spinal anatomy: Normal sagittal plane alignment. In: Bridwell KH, DeWald RL, eds. The Textbook of Spinal Surgery. Philadelphia: Lipincott-Raven; 1997:185-191.
17. Polly DW, Klemme WR, Cunningham BW, et al. The biomechanical significance of anterior column support in a simulated single-level spinal fusion. J Spinal Disord. 2000;13:58-62.
18. Diedrich O, Perlick L, Schmitt O, et al. Radiographic spinal profile changes induced by cage design after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: Preliminary report of a study with wedged implants. Spine. 2001;26:e274-e280.
19. Chen D, Fay LA, Lok J, et al. Increase neuroforaminal volume by anterior interbody distraction in degenerative lumbar spine. Spine. 1995;20:74-79.
20. Vamvanij V, Ferrara LA. Hai Y, et al. Quantitative changes in spinal canal dimensions using interbody distraction for spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2001;26:B1-B6.
21. Schlegel JD, Champine J, Taylor MS, et al. The role of distraction in improving the space available in the lumbar stenotic canal and foramen. Spine. 1994;19:2041-2047.
22. Klemme WR, Owens BD, Dhawan A, et al. Lumbar sagittal contour after posterior interbody fusion: Threaded devices alone versus vertical cages plus posterior instrumentation. Spine. 2001;26:534-537.